8/27/2013

The following comes to us from Charles C. Johnson, the “good Charles Johnson” (not to be confused with the guy at Little Green Footballs who bans anyone who disagrees with him even slightly.) Back in July, Charles spoke to former U.S. Attorney Jim Letten about the video of Jim Letten’s angry confrontation with James O’Keefe, in which Letten called O’Keefe a “hobbit” and a “spud” and an “asshole” and threw O’Keefe’s book at him.

Charles has allowed me to publish the interview exclusively here at patterico.com. Mr. Letten is welcome to respond with his side. Indeed, I specifically extended that invitation to Letten by email upon the publication of this post. Here is Charles’s interview:

My conversation in mid-July with former U.S. Attorney and Tulane Law School Dean Jim Letten

I reached out to Letten on his Tulane email address and gave him my number. He called me and we spoke for twenty-five minutes. Letten kept asking for the conversation to be off the record, something I never agreed to.

Using information he could only have obtained from me, Letten talked to Simerman about O’Keefe. Simerman then wrote an article trashing O’Keefe. Letten, who is unnamed as a source in the article but most likely “a source with knowledge of the incident,” admitted in an email to having spoken with Simerman. By contrast Simerman reported that Letten “declined to comment on the incidents.” Simerman did not return a request for comment.

When asked if his own comments were appropriate, Letten attacked O’Keefe’s credibility and called him an “extreme right-winger partisan who does these kind of stunts.”

When I said that I had seen the videotape of O’Keefe offering his wife a copy of the book and that he seemed pleasant, Letten insisted that O’Keefe had “terrorized” his wife and “threatened” his family, an assertion he repeated throughout the conversation.

Letten, who had been the longest serving U.S. Attorney, resigned in December 2012 after his two top lieutenants, including first assistant Jan Mann who prosecuted O’Keefe, were caught posting anonymous comments on a major Louisiana newspaper site mocking the defense during a high-profile trial. When confronted by a federal judge about it, Letten’s top staffers lied. Letten, along with two others, including Mann, resigned in disgrace.

At the time of O’Keefe’s trial Mann refused to comment on the charges brought against O’Keefe. Mann told Fox News.com that the U.S. Attorney’s office “[doesn’t] try cases in the press.”

Letten refused to answer whether O’Keefe’s case wasn’t subject to similar online sock puppetry, maintaining that O’Keefe was “appropriately prosecuted.” He did not answer questions as to how he could have known that if he recused himself from the prosecution.

O’Keefe has maintained that someone from the U.S. Attorney’s office leaked his privileged attorney-client emails, a subject he discusses at length in his book. Letten insists that he had nothing to do with it, if it indeed happened at all. “He’s just very deceitful and deceptive,” Letten said, who again said he had recused himself.

Letten wouldn’t say why he recused himself, but it is most likely because one of the defendants, including Robert Flagan, who is the son of the then acting U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Letten and Flagan are social acquaintances.

Letten insisted that he recused himself from the case, but after prodding acknowledged that it was “my office who continued to make the decision.” “When someone recuses themselves it isn’t done lightly,” Letten insisted.

The decision to prosecute O’Keefe and to accept Letten’s recusal was made at “the very highest levels of the Justice Department.” “[O’Keefe] was appropriately convicted.”

Letten declined to answer if his office worked with Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute O’Keefe.

There’s reason to think that he may have. Last month, J. Christian Adams, a voting rights expert, revealed documents that showed coordination by Holder’s Justice Department with Attorney General Richard Head of New Hampshire after O’Keefe’s successful voter fraud investigations. [Editor’s note: Richard Head has worked directly with Brett Kimberlin associate and professional harasser Neal Rauhauser.]

Insisting that O’Keefe wasn’t a “journalist,” Letten did not answer a question about whether O’Keefe should have been given the same protections as the so-called McConnell buggers, who were given First Amendment protections by the Justice Department. He persisted in refusing to answer the question.

Letten was indignant when asked why he took O’Keefe’s book only to throw it back at him. “Oh come on! I tossed it at him!”

Finally, I asked him if he felt his behavior was in keeping with the code of conduct that Tulane has for all its students and faculty. He declined to answer.

Bug Mitch McConnell, get treated like a journalist. Be James O’Keefe, get the book thrown at you.

That’s our Justice Department these days. Aren’t you proud?

UPDATE: Ken from Popehat makes the sound point that we can’t necessarily infer that McConnell’s bugger won’t be prosecuted just because he confessed in writing at Salon.com months ago and has yet to be prosecuted. The Feds have a way of delaying action to such a degree that is mystifying to mere mortals.

183 Responses to “Exclusive: Jim Letten Tells Charles C. Johnson That the Decision to Prosecute O’Keefe Was Made “At Highest Levels of the Justice Department””

My email to Letten:

Mr. Letten,

Today I have published an interview of you conducted by Charles C. Johnson in July, concerning the video released yesterday of your confrontation of James O’Keefe in which you called O’Keefe a “hobbit” and a “spud” and an “asshole” and threw O’Keefe’s book at him.

Letten attacked O’Keefe’s credibility and called him an “extreme right-winger partisan who does these kind of stunts.”

A-ha! I had a hunch there were political undertones to Letten’s behavior.

I’ve read that Letten was a Republican but I wasn’t totally sure what that necessarily meant. After all, there are left-leaning Republicans just as there are right-leaning Democrats—although the latter in today’s era is miniscule. Moreover, look at how the US military has become so philosophically corrupted that it tolerated Nidal Hasan until the bitter end—and even then still claimed his behavior was that of a disgruntled employee in the workplace.

We live in diminished (I want to say “dark” but don’t want to sound too melodramatic) times in American history. Eric Holder, as corrupt as he is, remains comfortably ensconced in his office, no less smug even with controversies swirling all around him. With his boss pulling up the rear.

Meanwhile, we have to place our trust in this band of decadent screwballs to deal with matters like Syria.

There’s reason to think that he may have. Last month, J. Christian Adams, a voting rights expert, revealed documents that showed coordination by Holder’s Justice Department with Attorney General Richard Head of New Hampshire after O’Keefe’s successful voter fraud investigations. [Editor's note: Richard Head has worked directly with Brett Kimberlin associate and professional harasser Neal Rauhauser.]

Letten did not answer a question about whether O’Keefe should have been given the same protections as the so-called McConnell buggers, who were given First Amendment protections by the Justice Department.

I’m not sure about this part.

First of all, this rather deceptively conflates two different charges. O’Keefe was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor charge of entering a federal building under false pretenses. Curtis Morrison was/is under investigation for secretly recording a meeting in what seems to be a private building.

It’s possible I’ve missed some announcement that the feds definitively decided not to charge Morrison. I’ve seen him complain as recently as July that they haven’t given him his computer back, and the AUSA was interacting with his attorney as recently as May.

It may be that Morrison won’t be charged. It may be that politics will enter into that decision in some unprincipled way. But — speaking as a former AUSA — I don’t think you can conclude anything about the federal investigation based on the very short amount of time that has passed. I mean “very short” by federal investigative standards. When someone gets “caught in the act,” charges tend to come quickly. When the feds learn about it after the fact, it’s often very slow. That’s how the feds are. Slow and painstaking grand jury investigations are their competitive advantage.

So: if the quoted statement above is meant to suggest “Morrison hasn’t been charged yet, which means that the Department of Justice has decided his activities were protected by the First Amendment, which is inconsistent with the O’Keefe case,” I respectfully suggest the evidence does not support the rather breathless conclusion.

Rob: If the Department of Justice decides not to charge Morrison, then the activities of the agencies you mention would be evidence one should consider in determining if the decision is political.

But if Morrison made the recording in February, and the investigation heated up in May or June, and there aren’t charges yet by the end of August, nobody who practices federal criminal law is likely to draw conclusions based on the “delay.”

You are free to draw your own conclusions based on the “delay.” Those conclusions might not be reality-based.

Everyone seems to forget, or ignore, what O’Keefe was after in Landrieu’s office. The office was refusing to take calls from constituents complaining about The “Louisiana Putchase” deal in the Obamacare vote. The office told the pres that the phones were “out of order.” O’Keefe and his associates were trying to document that they were working. It was a risky strategy but not an attempt to damage or “bug” anything.

BS. It is more likely that this administration — which has a consistent pattern of “rewarding their friends” and “punishing their enemies” — is once again acting the same way. Or do you hold out that they might yet file drug charges against Andy Sullivan?

Too bad O’Keefe didn’t find a 100% legal way to accomplish the same result of showing that the phones were working just fine. For example, complain to the local phone service provider that Landrieu’s staff say that the phones are not working and get real telephone workers to check it out. Maybe he could have had a Louisiana resident visit and ask for some help that required phone calls. Sad thing is guys like O’Keefe need staff lawyers and deep-pockets donors to successfully peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The little guy gets shut down by government permits and prosecution as punishment.

Plea bargain negotiations are not admissible into evidence, just like settlement negotiations are not in civil cases, but they are hardly privileged attorney-client communications. What am I missing? Plea deals are often made public before they are formally entered in court.

Too bad O’Keefe didn’t find a 100% legal way to accomplish the same result of showing that the phones were working just fine. For example, complain to the local phone service provider that Landrieu’s staff say that the phones are not working and get real telephone workers to check it out.

They probably were still even accepting phone calls. They could have plac ed some calls. (although with the telephone workers idea you’d never know what resulted)

The problem was this. James O’Keefe had gotten the diea from Andrew Breitbartt that you neded video. He was attempting to create some sort of video demonstration that the phones were OK.

Maybe he could have had a Louisiana resident visit and ask for some help that required phone calls.

Taping that would have gotten him into the same kind of trouble, access to a federal building under false pretences.

Civil disobedience, e.g., as modeled by MLK, does not expect to evade, and sometimes welcomes the payment of the penalty for ‘effing with ‘the way we were brought up and the way it is and ever will be’.

Harping on the arbitrary is brain dead. ‘Felony’ in this case is bogus, and meant so to be.

I have to ask you, are you usually drunk when you post comments, here ?
Because I cannot imagine anyone would write what you do when sober and think they were actually being clever and rational.

So, go ahead and blame it on the decoder ring that you got out of a box of Fruit Loops…probably the same decoder ring that you insist was receiving messages from Fox News, informing you that Sean Hannity was fired !

Here’s what happened at Tulane. O’Keefe went to Jim Letten’s house with his film crew. He rang the doorbell. Letten’s wife answered and O’Keefe politely asked if her husband were at home. She said no. He asked, again politely, if he could leave a copy of his book Breakthrough: Our Guerilla War to Expose Fraud and Save Democracy, which describes the Landrieu case. She said no and closed the door. End of encounter

Start a riots on university campuses then blame the police; take over the Democratic Party by coup d’état in Chicago amidst planned rioting (caused by police) as backdrop; pour excretion in corporate board rooms, sabotage factory machinery, blow up laboratories; plant bombs; rob armored cars; riot and loot and vandalize.

Youthful idealists now become political leaders of the nation.

Ask embarrassing questions; practice dogged journalism the likes of which Safer & Wallace (ostensibly) practiced; insistently ask questions in the modulate tone once used by Father Cronkite; go undercover like Abscam reporters to get at the facts.

Trouble making Mick scum terrorizing the nation.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”– George Orwell

So when is Mr. Tough Guy/Law Dean filing terrorism, tresspass complaint in defense of his wife and family?
For a Tough Guy he sure fell appart, lost it, in the presence of a…..”Hobbit”.
Also, lame, weak, loser name calling. He wouldn’t last five minutes in even a Salt Lake, Utah Middle School playground.

Seriously, peewee, you confessed to the speeding ticket, why? You had an understandable excuse… you’d had a Taco Bell lunch an hour earlier, it hit you wrong, and you were trying to book it on home before you crapped your pants. Why plead guilty?

Eric, take a vacation. You have lost credibility, here. You are viewed as a troll and justly so. You have become shrill and harping, and you drown the few valid points you make with your perseveration (sic)(not the same word as perseverance).

Eric–if you are somehow directly involved with this situation or if you personally know Mr. Letten or a member of his family it is past time for you to disclose. To an outsider looking in, your interest in this case and hysteria over its personalities hinges on the bizarre. You’ve made your feelings known. So have others. People who comment here are entitled to either agree or disagree with your point of view without being brow beaten every other comment. Your overweening and repetitive manner is not winning you any converts, you know.

On a more serious note, EPWJ likes to put himself inside another person’s brain and typing fingers—-pretends he knows their heart and motivation–states that they said and did things they never would even consider doing –applies additional strawmen based on “insider knowledge”–and then accuses them of being horrible people. It’s a thing.

It’s interesting. I have long followed EPWJ’s unusual posts over the years. I suspect that he posts without thinking, based on gut reactions….and then doesn’t want to back down. It’s pretty common.

Sure, lots of folks (including me) have been *very* suspicious of his Walter Mitty/Zelig like “insider knowledge” on practically everything. But so what? If he knows, he knows. If he is making it up, he is making it up.

What is strange to me is the weird love/hate relationship he has with the host. And I recall this every single time a troll posts that Patterico bans or otherwise blocks dissent.

Because I don’t believe Patterico is obligated to allow folks who insult him—or his friends—into the comment section. I continue to think of a blog as the host’s “electronic living room.”

That’s a minority opinion, I know. But I think that elissa and nk have been reliably straightforward on the topic of EPWJ. Ditto DRJ.

And I’m totally hypoglycemic. I don’t know if it’s the weather or the shock of having gained 18 lbs. in the last four months without noticing, or my impending eye surgery, or the diagnosis of basal cell on my Greek godlike visage, but I have zero appetite. One spoonful of sugar in one of many cups of black coffee is the only food I’ve had in the last eighteen hours. Where’s happyfeet, that piker with his 500 calories?

nk, do you mean basal cell skin cancer? I was treated for acne as a boy with soft X-rays (called Grenz radiation therapy) and the result has been dozens of actinic keratoses, basal cell carcinomas, a few squamous cell incidents (Bowens Disease early). No Big M, I am relieved to report. As of yet. Basals are super treatable, and I have my fingers crossed for you. I appreciate your voice on this blog, and I hope that you feel better soon.

EPWJ, he pled to a trivia offense because he probably got good advice that that was the cheapest way to deal with the Democrat’s tactics against him – advice I would have given him were my practice in criminal defense which IG is not.

Thanks, Simon. Oh yeah, it’s nothing. A two millimeter “wart” that I self-diagnosed as basal cell fifteen years ago, and didn’t care, has now turned scabby and a doctor finally noticed it! And it should go, it doesn’t make me look like Clint Eastwood anymore. I’m just sick of doctors, you know, and dermatologists are … wait for it … the pits.

nk, my brother received the same treatment, and has the same problem, as I do. But he lives in Orange County. So his dermatologists are all about the “cosmetic” aspects of removing these items. Neither my brother nor I are precisely runway models, let alone Greek gods (does Bacchus count?). So while my brother has all this attention to leaving no scars, my dermatologists just whip out the melon baller and scoop out divots. We have perfect faces for radio.

And I just figured out what’s bugging me, although it’s more appropriate on the Obvious Hate Crime Is (Not) Obvious thread.

I got an alert from my daughter’s school district that a girl from her school had been approached by a man in a car and told her something about candy. Nothing bad happened. The man drove away, the girl made it to school safely. The alert described the man as “… dark complexion, short black hair …”. No indication of race. I sent an email back to the district suggesting they ease off on the political correctness when it comes to the safety of our children. They thanked me for my response and promised to forward my thoughts to the village police department, implying I guess, “we’re telling you what the police told us”. Ayii.

Because I don’t believe Patterico is obligated to allow folks who insult him—or his friends—into the comment section. I continue to think of a blog as the host’s “electronic living room.”

For all we know, maybe EPWJ is making a sizable donation to this blog every month via the PayPal link. That is the only reason I can fathom that Patterico would put up with his nonsense. Though despite their protestations to the contrary, our host seems very tolerant with respect to the annoying participants in the comments section.

I also approve (not that that should sway anyone) politically of his decision to retain the ban as an ultimate sanction, very seldom used … it bespeaks a certain security and comfort in his own beliefs and opinions and self that he need not chase off dissent … I find it refreshing when I encounter someone who can resist the urge to persecute heretics and unbelievers …

As is usual, EPWJ claims special knowledge please demonstrate with facts, how that is a distortion, and how of is not even close to what happened. You appear to have info nobody else has. Enlighten us.

nk-
good luck with the eye surgery. I’ve had 3. get everything you need to be comfortable, audio books etc.
the worst for me has been stitches inside the lid around the eye… so irritating. use any ointment you get religiously keep it lubed. good news is the eye usually heals fast, so after 48 hrs things get noticeably better every 12 hours or so.
this is typed while sitting here with stitches again on my eye… this time it was a series of basal cells just below the eyelashes they did an all day Moh’s and then two days later an eyelid repair. I went to a wedding after the mohs, got home and the bandage was soaked in blood. nice.
stitches out Thursday woo hoo!
are you getting surgery on corneas? heal fast, heal right!

EPWJ,
So, go ahead and blame it on the decoder ring that you got out of a box of Fruit Loops…probably the same decoder ring that you insist was receiving messages from Fox News, informing you that Sean Hannity was fired !

Eric is treating James O’Keefe the way he treated George Zimmerman (ie, virtually no benefit of the doubt) and, in turn, Letten and Company are being treated by EPWJ in a manner similar to his response towards Trayvon Martin.

One of the funniest points about the whole deal is that the Corrupt (In)Justice Department which prosecuted Mr. O’Keefe for allegedly entering on false pretenses, yada, yada, yada, is the same (In)Justice Department that says it is a violation of the Constitution to ask a suspected illegal immigrant for ID !

What O’Keefe should do is hire an illegal immigrant to do some of this surveillance—that way it would be “racist” for him to be asked to provide ID.

The man drove away, the girl made it to school safely. The alert described the man as “… dark complexion, short black hair …”. No indication of race.

I’m far, far more worried about the mentality behind that (ie, political correctness gone berserk) and its corrupting influence on every aspect of our society than I am by the harm done by subversives like Edward Snowden.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Americans are more likely to be maimed or killed by the high priests (hey, Barack! How ‘ya doing?! Hi, Eric Holder!) and priestesses (“what difference does it make!!?”) of modern-day liberalism than by people who are paling around with Al Qaeda.

and on the question of why does anyone plead guilty if they believe themselves to be innocent..
several reasons
risk/reward: three years probation looks great compared to any crime carrying a mandatory sentence

the laws alleged to have been broken may be particularly difficult to defend against.

bad advice

good advice (see #1 and 2) and maybe juries around those parts routinely and overwhelmingly vote to convict on these types of charges

cost of defense

residence is on the other side of the country.
run into trouble while passing through RI, live in CA. plead out to something that doesn’t take away your job etc, get short unsupervised probation, go home, get on with life, don’t go back to RI

Problem is that last link, relies on Kimberlin associate Friedman, and Rachel Maddow as some sort of arbiter,

Exactly. Funny how Kimberlin associates keep cropping up, huh?

And it ignores that the first shot of the first video shows O’Keefe walking into the first ACORN office dressed normally. Which is a point I have made repeatedly: O’Keefe LED WITH the very thing that Kimberlin partner Brad Friedman accused O’Keefe of trying to BURY.

For all we know, maybe EPWJ is making a sizable donation to this blog every month via the PayPal link. That is the only reason I can fathom that Patterico would put up with his nonsense. Though despite their protestations to the contrary, our host seems very tolerant with respect to the annoying participants in the comments section.

He is not. Though I will say that EPWJ — quite some time ago, probably more than two years ago at least — would periodically make reasonably substantial donations, which I appreciated. I did not let it affect the way I treated him as a commenter, other than the fact that it led me to believe that his support for me was genuine and not feigned. However, when his behavior became intolerable, I told him so. There have been no donations for a long period, as I have just said, but I do believe EPWJ is a sincere person at heart, although he clearly rubs many people the wrong way, and with good reason.

I am still mystified as to what the hug favor insult thing is all about.

I think EPWJ was trying to say “huge favor” not “hug favor,” so it was just a typo.

But I don’t know who he thinks Patterico is insulting someone who did him a favor. My best guess is that EPWJ is suggesting Letten did Patterico a favor — perhaps by offering his friend James O’Keefe a plea deal? — but that makes no sense because Letten had recused himself so I assume he had nothing to do with O’Keefe’s plea.

On the other hand, I’m not sure a recusal means the same thing in Louisiana that it means in other places so it’s possible Letten remained informed about the O’Keefe case even if he wasn’t prosecuting it. If so, Letten theoretically could have signed off on the O’Keefe plea deal — which arguably did O’Keefe a favor, and anyone who supported O’Keefe.

Letten is a Republican, having been appointed to the U.S. Attorney’s position by President George W. Bush. Nonetheless, when Republicans lost the Presidency to Democrat Barack Obama in 2008, many Democrats, including U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, took the unusual step of urging the new President to ignore partisan labels and reappoint Letten.[7]

My surmise is that Eric thought Patterico was insulting Ken, somehow, by his reference to the McConnell buggers (that word does not seem appropriate for some reason). My other surmise is that Eric poured Maker’s Mark instead of Jack Daniels — Maker’s Mark is much more powerful stuff.

Yeah, I thought he was trying to imply that Patterico threw a fit and insulted Ken, despite Ken having done Patterico a huge favor. It was typical EPWJ nonsense, creating a scenario and conflict that did not exist outside of his fevered mind.

OT, but this shows exactly how badly the FBI bungled Ft. Hood and shiws that people did not need to die. What is the point of all the secret intercepts and listening, again? Conversations between Hassan and Awlaki were considered “benign”? Riiight.

So it was an army commissioned officer being pen pals with, and asking specific questions about martyrdom to a wanted terrorist, that somehow resulted in unexplained explosive workplace violence with undetermined motive. They really do think we’re stupid.

It’s worth the Ft. Hood families’ time to keep fighting this classification. These revelations should help their cause considerably. One of the questions that must be asked of course is how Nidal Hassan knew how to contact Awlaki in the first place. I doubt he was in the yellow pages. I suspect if we were ever to find out the true answer to that mystery we would not like it. But it might help explain why the content of the emails was ignored by the “analysts” and why Hassan got such glowing reviews from superiors for trying to increase understanding of Islam within the military.

Speaking of you never hugging me no matter how much I do for you or how lonely and dejected I’m feeling, Patrick, I just wanted to tip you off that apparently you’re my co-blogger now.

Tara Carreon — that’s the wife of Charles Carreon, briefly infamous for a bumptious legal threat against the webcomic The Oatmeal, and for assorted legal douchebaggery thereafter — thinks that you-Patrick are the Patrick who writes at Popehat. She writes about such things on the forum of their site “Rapeutation.com,” where they talk about “Rapeutation,” which is what they call it when someone points out your dickery on the internet.

She also thinks we have a blogger called “Via Angus.” We may be playing along with that one.

I sometimes wonder if I overstate just how philosophically deranged this society has become. That I’m laying it on too thick when I keep mentioning the “Nidal Hasan-ization” of our military and other facets of the government, etc.

If anything, I didn’t realize just how bad it really was and is.

And rather ironic that a leftwing publication like Motherjones is the one that reveals just how extreme the situation has become.

Again, I have less concern about the Edward Snowdens out there than I do about various people who are comfortably occupying some of the upper echelons of the US government, including the Oval Office. What a sad reality that is.

The liberals say that if you want to vote for Senator X, you cannot be forced to show ID.
But if you wish to go to visit Senator X’s field office, you better show ID or you’ll be charged with entering the building under false pretenses.
Or something.

A stray post about something had a hyperlink at the end titled “Via Angus,” because it linked elsewhere to a blogger called Angus to attribute the content of the post.

Tara Carreon has stubbornly insisted in interpreting this showing we have a blogger called Via Angus. Never mind the post in question had an author attribution, and that the link was to a different blog. Like I said: cray cray.

So, being obliging types, we created an author profile for Via Angus. He blogs about cow things.

I suggest that Via Angus’ profile notes he is from Texas. We have a lot of cows here so it’s believable, and Texas links seem to drive some people even crazier than usual.

I see Via Angus as a fan of the King Ranch or maybe the Four Sixes. He probably drives a Ford F-250 and likes Tex-Mex, barbecue, cowboy boots, and guns. If you want the total package, make him a graduate of Texas A&M.

So let me get this straight: when the IRS targets millions of people based on their political beliefs, it’s a small affair that the President knows nothing about and has no control over. Likewise, the Justice Department is not involved in the NSA scandal, voter fraud, or wiretapping the AP.

When a young journalist steps over the line when trying to get a scoop, the highest levels of the Justice Department get involved.

In the case of the Tsarnaev brothers DHS and the FBI knew the older one, at least, was in direct communications with an insurgent (originally a boxer in Canada) killed fighting Russian forces in Chechnya as well as seen with other known insurgents during his six month sojourn to volatile Dagestan, and the USG had been warned at least once by the Russian internal security bureau of this, and still the FBI couldn’t put 2 and 2 together.

When the government goes “full metal retard” into “no Islam to see here” mode, basic addition is the first thing to go.

In the case of the Tsarnaev brothers DHS and the FBI knew the older one, at least, was in direct communications with an insurgent (originally a boxer in Canada) killed fighting Russian forces in Chechnya as well as seen with other known insurgents during his six month sojourn to volatile Dagestan, and the USG had been warned at least once by the Russian internal security bureau of this, and still the FBI couldn’t put 2 and 2 together.

They didn’t have enough evidence not to close the case under FBI rules. They begged Russia for more specific informaiton but Russia wouldn’t give any.

you should learn to read first before posting an article that – first is from manuel torres a democrat party operator – second – is from the highly discredited nola.com – third – doesn’t say that letten allowed it to happen, or lied about it

Shortly after then-prosecutor Sal Perricone was unmasked as an anonymous commenter on NOLA.com in March 2012, colleague Jan Mann revealed to her boss, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten, that she had also posted comments on the site, a court order revealed Tuesday.

The testimony is the first concrete indication that Letten knew about the misconduct going on in his office, yet went on to publicly deny having such knowledge during a press conference March 15, 2012, just days after Perricone’s scandal started.

that is a lie, he was told when Sal’s scandal broke that she did indeed do it – what Letten said was I have no way of knowing who posts what online.

I think the report that “Letten knew about the misconduct going on in his office, yet went on to publicly deny having such knowledge during a press conference March 15, 2012, just days after Perricone’s scandal started” is new and very troubling. He was the U.S. Attorney for the E.D. Louisiana. That’s shocking.

“Letten knew about the misconduct going on in his office, yet went on to publicly deny having such knowledge during a press conference March 15, 2012, just days after Perricone’s scandal started” is new and very troubling. He was the U.S. Attorney for the E.D. Louisiana. That’s shocking.

It’s not shocking. It just takes away the middle ground. The middle ground being there was misconduct going on but he was not part of it.

I don’t know what you mean by that comment but I will endeavor to explain my thinking to you.

If this report is true, it is shocking for a U.S. Attorney to obstruct justice and knowingly lie to a court about his employees’ misconduct, let alone to allow his employees to interfere with the fair trial of defendants they were prosecuting. It’s the legal equivalent of finding out your doctor is euthanizing people without their knowledge.

Sammy, the boss knew, and did nothing. That not only makes him part of it, but that puts it in his lap as the responsible adult in the room. Then he public ally lied about it, That not only makes him the responsible adult but led a judge in part to throw out serious criminal convictions.